Posted!

Join the Nation's Conversation

Filing dismissive of college officials' fears about suit

Steve Berkowitz, USA TODAY Sports
2:08 a.m. EDT April 26, 2013

Big Ten Conference commissioner Jim Delany, left, speaks next to Pac-12 Conference commissioner Larry Scott during a Tournament of Roses news conference Tuesday in Pasadena. A new filing in the Ed O'Bannon likeness case against the NCAA questions Delany's recent claims on what a plaintiff victory would mean for Division I athletics.(Photo: Walt Mancini, Associated Press)

Lawyers representing former and current college football and men's basketball players in an anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA and two other defendants on Thursday dismissed claims from various college officials that a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs would result in some major athletics programs dramatically scaling back sports.

In March, lawyers for the NCAA wrote that if the association's current amateurism rules were lifted, as proposed in a lawsuit pertaining to the use of college athletes' names, likeness and images, some schools might exit Division I or the Football Bowl Subdivision because of the financial and legal burden that would result from needing to share revenue with football and men's basketball players.

The assertion was backed by written statements from a group of conference and university executives, including the University of Texas' top athletics officials, the chancellor of the California State University system, the presidents of Utah State and Wake Forest, and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany.

In seeking certification of their suit as a class action, the plaintiffs' lawyers said that although they are seeking monetary damages on behalf of former athletes, they "do not seek compensation to be paid to current student-athletes while they maintain their eligibility" but rather "a less restrictive alternative, namely that monies generated by the licensing and sale of class members' names, images and likenesses can be temporarily held in and sale of class members' names, images and likenesses can be temporarily held in trust" until their end of their college playing careers.

Thursday, in reply documents filed in U.S. District Court in California, the plaintiffs wrote: " ... the NCAA offers a 'parade of horribles' about how ... schools might withdraw from Division I and migrate to Division III or how they would have to stop providing financial aid to (student-athletes). ... These self-serving, speculative opinions are entitled to no weight in determining whether" class-action status should be granted.

The plaintiffs' lawyers singled out Delany, writing that news articles and commentaries after the NCAA's March filing have pointed out, among other things: "Delany has a storied history of making sweeping pronouncements about the Big Ten that are contradicted by what the conference does soon thereafter."

They also wrote that defense expert James Heckman said during a deposition on March 29 "in the context of labor-management bargaining, a 'standard strategy for bargaining would be to talk about the grief that would be caused by the union demands' with resulting 'overstatement.' … The declarations from representatives of NCAA schools and conferences must be evaluated for credibility in this context."

In addition, citing ever-increasing spending by major-college athletics programs – especially spending on facilities and coaching salaries -- the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote, "the economic dislocation predicted by Defendants ignores the fact that Division I men's football and basketball is rife with unnecessary expenditures that could be modified or eliminated so that more money could be allocated directly to" the athletes. "There is enough waste in these types of expenditures to permit a reallocation of some of the broadcast revenues to the (student-athlIetes) who make this all possible."